medium of joint hearings with the Commission for the Second District to inquire whether The Long Island Railroad Company manned its electrically operated trains with a sufficient number of trainmen and guards. Several other matters were taken under consideration, including the operation of train gates, etc. The two Commissions adopted orders in April, 1916, providing that all cars operated by the company should be equipped with platform gates and trap doors for use on high level platform stations. and that in no case should platform gates or trap doors be raised by any person other than employes of the company duly authorized. The company applied for a rehearing, which was granted and closed on July 10.

No other action was taken in the matter until on motion of Commissioner William Hayward a further hearing was ordered and held on March 21, 1917, and closed, following which the two Commissions adopted orders, after rehearing, directing the railroad company to operate in multiple unit trains only cars equipped with vestibule doors or platform gates and with trap doors to cover the step as provided in the original order, but stipulating that there should be an employe of the road stationed on each two passenger cars on all trains from Flatbush avenue to Rockaway park; all express and local trains from Flatbush avenue to Jamaica and to Union Hall Street station, irrespective of destination; all trains from Pennsylvania station to Whitestone Landing; all trains from Pennsylvania station to Broadway, Flushing; and all trains from Pennsylvania station to Jamaica and to Union Hall Street station, irrespective of their destination. The hearing also provided that on all other multiple unit trains operated by the company there should be stationed a sufficient number of employes to open and close platform gates or vestibule doors on the platform side of the train at each high station platform and open and close the platform gates or vestibule doors and trap doors at low level platforms, so that no passenger on such trains would be required to walk more than the length of the car in which such passenger was riding, to reach the car platform at which an employe was stationed, so that every car should have at least one opening accessible for boarding or as an exit. The order further provided that no gates, vestibule doors or trap doors

should be opened on other than the platform side of the trains and that no person other than an employe of the company authorized to do so, should open or close the gates or vestibule doors or trap doors.

The order was directed to take effect on July 1, 1917, to supersede the order of April 20, 1916, and to abrogate an order adopted by the Commission for the First District in April, 1910, making certain provisions for the operation of electric trains on the same road.

Case No. 2063-Manhattan Bridge Three Cent Line — Complaint against Practices of the Brooklyn and North River Railroad Company.- Much of the history of this case is recorded in the Commission's last Annual Report. The proceeding arose out of a complaint filed by the first-named company with the Commission against the corporation second named. The Manhattan Bridge Three Cent line is a so-called independent trolley road, operating largely a local service from the Manhattan terminal on the Manhattan bridge, across that bridge and to points in Brooklyn. The defendant corporation had a somewhat similar and competing service across the same bridge. The complaint charged that the second corporation not only carried passengers across the bridge for three cents but unfairly invaded the franchise territory of the first-named line by carrying passengers beyond the bridge terminal in Brooklyn for three cents. contention was advanced by the complainant company that this was improper and a violation of the franchise of the Brooklyn and North River Company, which was organized by the officials of the companies in the existing systems of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

The

The order of the Commission, as noted in the Annual Renoof 1916, in which it was provided that the Brooklyn and North River Company should not carry local passengers at the threecent rate beyond the bridge termini in Brooklyn or Manhattan, proved objectionable to that company and, as noted in the 1916 report, an extension of time was sought in which to make known the company's position. Several appeals were made by the defendant corporation for a rehearing, which was finally granted, and as a result the Commission resettled its order, making even

more definite the restrictions placed upon the operation of the Brooklyn and North River Company. This resettled order was adopted on February 28, 1917. In addition to providing that the Brooklyn and North River Company discontinue terminating the operation of any of its cars at the terminal of the Manhattan bridge in the Borough of Manhattan or at the terminal of the Manhattan bridge in the Borough of Brooklyn as set forth in the first order, it also provided that the company must cease the termination of operation at the intersection of Bridge street and Flatbush avenue extension in Brooklyn. The company sought extensions of time in which to notify the Commission whether it would accept the order and made application for a further rehearing, holding that it had been denied the privilege of presenting evidence as to the desirability of turning back cars at Bridge street and Flatbush avenue extension. The Commission, however, denied this application for a rehearing and further notice was sent to the company, requiring compliance with the order. The matter was later submitted to the directors of the company and the Commission was notified by George Keegan, Secretary, on May 18, that the company would accept the order for the purpose of preventing litigation. In its letter of acceptance the company, however, renewed its objections to the order, but has made no application for further consideration or action by the Commission.

Case No. 2114-Third Avenue Railway Company - Condition of Tracks on Amsterdam Avenue, between Manhattan Street and Fort George. At the end of 1916 the company had much of the repair work to its tracks, contemplated under this proceeding, under way, but had applied to the Commission late in the year for a modification of the order, together with an extension of time within which to complete track improvements previously ordered by the Commission upon other lines of the Third Avenue system. The order had specified that certain tracks should be relaid during the calendar years of 1917 and 1918. The company asked in its request for modification that the requirements of repairing all worn rail joints and the removal of rail corrugations on such rails as were to be relaid in the two years named be abrogated. The Commission on December 27,

1916, denied the application to extend to December 31, 1917, the time within which the company might make certain of the improvements called for by the order. This proposed extension of time was to apply to the work of rebuilding the tracks from Manhattan street to 133d street; from 145th street to 161st street and from 180th street to 183d street. Since the issuance of the original order, careful inspections have been made of the work and its progress noted in reports. The Commission on July 25, 1917, on application of the company, further amended its order, permitting some changes in the detail of the proposed rerailing program and allowing some of the work to be done in 1919, on condition, however, that the company should rerail both of its tracks on Broadway between 72d street and 96th street, which were badly in need of repair. The company accepted the order and inspections made since have shown that the work was going forward.

Case No. 2102-Brakeshoes on Cars of Elevated Lines.- In an effort to determine whether the noise caused by the application of brakes on elevated trains might be lessened, the Commission began this case in June, 1916. For some years considerable attention has been devoted to the subject, and one expedient tried was the use of lubricated brakeshoes. These have been tested on surface car lines and materially reduced the noise. The tests were continued through 1916 and 1917 on elevated railroads, several hearings being held by the Commission on different occasions. In November, 1917, the hearings were resumed after several adjournments, and Clifton W. Wilder, the Commission's electrical engineer, testified as to the experiments which had been made. Two test trains had been taken, one equipped with lubricated brakeshoes and another equipped with standard brakeshoes for experimental purposes. In the tests with lubricated shoes, noisy applications of brakes averaged 13.4 to each 100, while on the trains equipped with ordinary brakeshoes, the percentage was 55.7 of noisy applications out of each 100 applications made. The Interborough Company, Mr. Wilder pointed out, had equipped three trains, one with lubricated flanged shoes throughout, the second train with lubricated flanged shoes on motor cars and lubricated non-flanged shoes on trailer cars and a third train

The experiment

with flanged non-lubricating shoes on all cars. on these trains showed that on the first train with lubricated flanged shoes throughout, 33 out of each 100 brake applications were noted to be noisy; on the second train equipped with lubricated flanged shoes on motor cars and lubricated non-flanged shoes on trailer cars, 39 out of each 100 brake applications were noted to be noisy, and on the third train, equipped with non-lubricated flanged shoes throughout, 47 out of each 100 applications of the brakes were noted to be noisy. It was testified, however, that lubricated shoes were not as effective and did not wear as well as shoes of the ordinary type. The engineer concluded his testimony with the recommendation that the Commission should not "at this time" issue an order requiring the companies to adopt a lubricated type of brakeshoe on elevated and subway cars. Не made this recommendation, he stated, on account of the knowledge of conditions of increased cost, both first cost and maintenance, and particularly as to Brooklyn, because of impending changes about to be made in the type of equipment operated there. Mr. Wilder, however, recommended that the Interborough Company be ordered to equip all trucks with a flanged type of shoe. With such change and in view of the new equipment to be operated in Brooklyn, Mr. Wilder was of the opinion that further observations might be made looking to additional recommendations at a time when business conditions should become normal. A statement was made by the representative of the Brooklyn Company to the effect that this company would be subjected to a very heavy expense if directed to install lubricated brakeshoes at this time and the hearing was adjourned to a later occasion at which time a representative of the Interborough presented similar testimony, and the case was then closed.

Case No. 2074 - New York Consolidated Railroad Company -Service between Cypress Hills and Chambers Street.- Case No. 2234-Equipment, Service, etc., in Centre Street Loop Subway.— The case first named was begun in 1916 on a complaint by Clarence E. Reed of Richmond Hill as to conditions existing in the operation of the Broadway-Cypress Hills lines in Brooklyn, particularly in reference to the Manhattan terminal of this line, the Chambers Street station in the Municipal Building.

The